In February, Edge hosted the finale in our latest series of debates on the philosophy of vocational education (VET). The session provided a welcome break from the practical questions of implementation and allowed us to reflect on deeper concerns about the fundamental nature of VET.
Chaired by Professors Chris Winch (KCL) and Prue Huddleston (Warwick), our final session focused on a hotly debated topic – how to balance the needs of national VET policy with regional and local priorities. Four expert commentators addressed just a few of the many tensions that can arise from these differing needs.
The debate's first provocation came from Kevin Orr (University of Huddersfield). His driving question was: Is it better to organise VET locally rather than nationally? He used the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) as an example. GMCA currently has devolved power over its adult education budget, while the broader situation in Manchester is an excellent proxy for England at large. Manchester faces similar problems – such as the stark division between academic and vocational pathways, lack of employer-led work-based training and a school system that reproduces (rather than redresses) socio-economic inequalities.
Kevin believes it’s possible to solve these issues better at the local level, but only if authorities are freed from national policy and can apply different thinking. For example, encouraging employers to incentivise skills development by investing in their businesses could arguably be better achieved through local policymaking.
Kevin acknowledged that devolution could also further fragment the skills sector but emphasised that good policymaking – regardless of its origin – should demonstrate clear accountability to local communities.
Next, Norman Crowther (National Education Union) discussed the need for colleges to act as mediating institutions for technical education and skills. He pointed out that while incorporation liberated individual colleges, it failed to provide a basis for local strategies. In addition, FE continues to lack a recognised shared purpose, with college mergers and demergers (among other issues) distorting their identities.
He suggested that to become effective mediating institutions, FE colleges must articulate a strategic understanding of what it means to be anchor institutions. Unfortunately, they lack the established history of social worth that is connected to other institutions, such as hospitals and universities.
Creating a sense of civic purpose, then, requires some steps. This might include forming social partnerships with workforce trade unions and fostering clearer local and regional pathways for technical and skilled work. He acknowledged that these are mammoth tasks – especially with the current lack of central government support – but that big problems also require big solutions.
Viveca Lindberg (Stockholm University) provided our third provocation of the day. During the 20th century, Sweden moved from a relatively locally-driven VET system to a national one. In the 21st century, however, modern VET in Sweden is again being affected by societal shifts, changes to the labour market, and evolving concepts of work and responsibility connected with wider international trends.
Her core argument was that debates around local versus national VET needs risk overlooking the more complex issue of rural versus urban. National policies, for instance, are often created in large cities and based on urban conditions. But when these solutions are applied in sparsely populated rural areas with significantly different skills needs, their real needs can be left unmet.
Zooming out, Viveca also noted that supranational organisations (such as the OECD and the EU) are contributing to changing ideas of VET on a global scale. This has the potential to be both positive and negative, she argued. On one hand, it could support a more joined-up, global approach to VET. On the other, it could impose supranational needs onto smaller communities, further widening the gap between local and national priorities.
Our final speaker was Lesley Powell (Nelson Mandela University, South Africa). During a rich presentation, she carefully argued for greater participatory planning in skills development, believing that skills planning needs reorientation towards a social transformation agenda that considers working, living, and learning rather than a narrow human capital approach. She also picked up and developed the theme that Kevin had initially raised about the limitations of ‘supply side’ and human capital approaches to VET.
There is a need, she argued, to build democratic systems where policymakers and communities can co-construct skills needs and responses from the bottom up. Furthermore, a broader notion of education and training is needed; one that recognises the multiple roles VET can play in human flourishing and in alleviating poverty. This must recognise work in its broadest sense, especially in the global South, where the informal and care sectors and SMEs represent the areas of highest job growth.
Ultimately, the main argument was to expand the capability of community voice to help enable civic engagement. Getting this right means the associated knowledge and skills could be potentially transformative at both individual and societal levels.
As with all the debates in our series, the latest discussion proved far more multifaceted than we could have expected. From an exploration of the potential benefits and challenges of locally organised VET to the role of colleges as mediating institutions, the right balance between local and national decision making and the complexities of rural versus urban needs, there was much to consider as we unpick the geographical priorities of VET moving forward.
To watch the full discussion, a recording of the debate is available here.